The objective of the paper is to point at the superficial character of the contemporary sociology and the culture oriented trends in the research of the interliterariness. It has been very often neglected that the object of the literature research is the beauty of literature, as that which causes the changes in the development. There was a Russian-Slovak (and structuralist) chapter in the history of interliterariness. At present it lives as a whole in the world but its findings have been utilized differently. Unfortunately, it appears that the theses of the Russian-Slovak school have been exploited for the utilitarian goals. Instead of the aesthetic essence of a phenomenon in its historical form, which was Durisin's intention, the models of literature subjugated to a cultural interest has become an objective of the research of interliterariness. The paper is also devoted to the various forms in which Durisin is present in the contemporary theory of interliterariness. In this connection, Franka Sinapoli maintains that the hermeneutic value of the history of interliterariness has been increased and that Durisin is the key personality of this encouraging occurrence. Mario Juan Valdés says that interliterariness is the only research project that proves the invalidity of Foucault's episteme theory. It is due to the fact that the hermeneutic value of the history of interliterariness increased after the Russian-Slovak period. The paper also focuses on Earl Miner's theory. Miner maintains that 'comparisons are more stimulating if they place real differences into mutual relationships'. Lotman proves that Durisin found out that a difference in the sign (of a structure) is equally relevant as the difference between the literature of Western Europe and that of Japan. Nowadays, even the thematic criticism (Harry Perkins) holds that literature is based on a difference (distance) of what is actually close. In spite of this, Durisin is conceived of as a founder of the transition of literary research from intraculturality to interculturality, i. e. as a theoretician of 'big differences'. Unfortunately, the idea that only a big difference is a difference, and that only a big difference is worth of examination, and that all minute differences are the forms of identity is so wide-spread that it creates a new situation in the theory of interliterariness in the form of a return to the big literatures, to the big literary phenomena. This idea is dangerous to the Slovak literature, to the Slavonic interliterary community, to the Czecho-Slovak interliterary community, and, generally, to interliterary communities which are a form of existence of the world literature.